Red Dot question > Optics, Mounts, and Sights

Posted: 12/29/2004 9:05:13 PM EDT

OK,

Now that I've safely zipped in to my nomexes, I have a n00b question about Red Dots.

I am new to the AR platform, and indeed the military-style rifle world, but I've been using high-quality handguns for self-defense for a decade. I keep an HK USP9 (full-size, V2 as I'm a lefty) with a UTL and +2 magazine full of MagSafe Defenders for home use, and I carry a P7M13 loaded with MagSafe Air Marshalls in custom IWB leather by IronOak (a great custom maker here in the P.R.O. Philadelphia who has apparently stopped working).

A long time ago, a buddy made me a gift of a USP scope mount and a Tasco ProPoint Plus 5. Can I use this on my new Bushy™ M4A2, or is it B.C. (beyond crap)?

Thanks in advance for advice,

TNS

Posted: 12/29/2004 9:55:22 PM EDT

[#1]

The two 1x red dot systems for the AR15 which come recommended by those who give them hard use are the Aimpoint M2/ML2 and second the EOTech 551/552 under certain circumstances.

Posted: 12/29/2004 10:01:31 PM EDT

[#2]

Tasco ProPoint is crap. Not worth the parts its made out of.

Posted: 12/29/2004 10:05:31 PM EDT

[#3]

#1 Aimpoint
#2 Eotech

And PLEASE get rid of the Magsafe rounds and get some 127gr +P Winchester Ranger SXT or some 124gr Gold Dots (+P or non).

Posted: 12/29/2004 10:14:31 PM EDT

[#4]

The two 1x red dot systems for the AR15 which come recommended by those who give them hard use are the Aimpoint M2/ML2 and second the EOTech 551/552 under certain circumstances.

Gee, thanks Zack.

Tasco ProPoint is crap. Not worth the parts its made out of.

That's what I thought. Refreshing candor.

And PLEASE get rid of the Magsafe rounds and get some 127gr +P Winchester Ranger SXT or some 124gr Gold Dots (+P or non).

And give up the rounds that transfer the most energy into the target the fastest and most reliably?

Why?

Are there actual "used-by-cops-in-the-streets" numbers to justify this? I always read that MagSafes had the greatest effectiveness in one-shot takedowns of any rounds on the market...

TNS

Posted: 12/29/2004 10:20:24 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
The two 1x red dot systems for the AR15 which come recommended by those who give them hard use are the Aimpoint M2/ML2 and second the EOTech 551/552 under certain circumstances.

Gee, thanks Zack.

What's the problem? I thought my answer was pretty clear.

And give up the rounds thattransfer the most energy into the target the fastest and most reliably? Why?

Read www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm and the Ammo Oracle and be enlightened.

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed." 42,43 Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.44

Posted: 12/30/2004 1:51:11 AM EDT

[#6]

I don't mean to be contentious-- especially as a n00b-- but before I look at that, is that based on strictly anecdotal, or clinical, evidence?

I am a one-time political operative, and I'm real sceptical about numbers. As I said, I was once pretty interestd in handguns, but it's been a while since I was abreast (I said breast!) of ballistic data. Last time I was current, Strasbourg was the deal, and what little data there were regarding actual use, MagSafes were putting the sleestacks down.

I'm totally willing to accept that I'm wrong/out of date/ a moron, but can anyone point me to actual shooting reports that verify the efficacy of one type of ammo over another? I honestly thought frangible was the deal.

TNS

Posted: 12/30/2004 4:24:24 AM EDT

[#7]

I have a Tasco ProPoint Plus 5 mounted on my FAL and it has never failed and thats shooting 308.
If you already have it give it a try, It work in the same fashion as a Aimpoint. That way you can decide if you like a dot sight and can see the difference in the dot sizes.
or sell it to me.

Posted: 12/30/2004 4:31:38 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
I don't mean to be contentious-- especially as a n00b-- but before I look at that, is that based on strictly anecdotal, or clinical, evidence?

I am a one-time political operative, and I'm real sceptical about numbers. As I said, I was once pretty interestd in handguns, but it's been a while since I was abreast (I said breast!) of ballistic data. Last time I was current, Strasbourg was the deal, and what little data there were regarding actual use, MagSafes were putting the sleestacks down.

I'm totally willing to accept that I'm wrong/out of date/ a moron, but can anyone point me to actual shooting reports that verify the efficacy of one type of ammo over another? I honestly thought frangible was the deal.

TNS

Go to the Ammo Oracle. The alphabet boys get some of their info from it.

Oh, and welcome to the greatest site on the net. You can't be a complete moron if you're here. (Sorry, I couldn't resisit)....

Woody

Posted: 12/30/2004 9:43:04 AM EDT

[#9]

The FirearmsTactical link I posted contains a lot of data and papers by those professionally in the field of terminal ballistics. References are cited.

Posted: 12/30/2004 9:47:29 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
I don't mean to be contentious-- especially as a n00b-- but before I look at that, is that based on strictly anecdotal, or clinical, evidence?

Proven Scientific Testing and Autopsies.

I am a one-time political operative, and I'm real sceptical about numbers. As I said, I was once pretty interestd in handguns, but it's been a while since I was abreast (I said breast!) of ballistic data. Last time I was current, Strasbourg was the deal, and what little data there were regarding actual use,

You say you're skeptical yet you beleived the BS about the Strasbourg tests?

Go over to firearmstactical.com - there are some excellent commetaries on the Strasbourg tests.

Posted: 12/30/2004 12:25:09 PM EDT

[#11]

You say you're skeptical yet you beleived the BS about the Strasbourg tests?

I did say that...and I said I welcomed correction.

I'll check out those links, but I seem to recall a list of officer-involved shootings that ranked MagSafes at the top...

Thanks for the links, gents.

TNS

Oh, and make me an offer for the ProPoint!

Posted: 12/30/2004 8:41:44 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
..I'll check out those links, but I seem to recall a list of officer-involved shootings that ranked MagSafes at the top...
...

The infamous M&S Books... Go to the links above they can prove the data was faked.

Posted: 12/30/2004 10:02:30 PM EDT

[#13]

Here's a link to magsafe at Tactical Briefs. Magsafe Inadequate Terminal Performance

Warning

Confirm Action

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Red Dot question

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Red Dot question